Dissemination or participation? Exploring scientists’ definitions and science communication goals in the Netherlands

Abstract

The field of science communication has grown considerably over the past decade, and so have the number of scientific writings on what science communication is and how it should be practiced. The multitude of theoretisations and models has led to a lack of clarity in defining science communication, and to a highly popularised—and theorised—rhetorical shift from deficit to dialogue and participation. With this study, we aim to remediate the absence of research into what science communication is, for scientists themselves. We also investigate whether the transition towards dialogue and participation is reflected in the goals scientists identify as important to their science communication efforts, both in a general and a social media context. For this, we analyse survey data collected from scientists in the Netherlands using thematic qualitative analysis and statistical analysis. Our results reveal six main dimensions of science communication as defined by our respondents. The 584 definitions we analyse demonstrate a focus on a one-way process of transmission and translation of scientific results and their impacts towards a lay audience, via mostly traditional media channels, with the goals of making science more accessible, of educating audiences, and of raising awareness about science. In terms of the goals identified as most important by scientists in the Netherlands, we find goals aligned with the deficit and dialogue models of science communication to be the most important. Overall, our findings suggest we should be cautious in the face of recent claims that we live in a new era of dialogue, transparency, and participation in the realm of science communication.

Science communication objectives and actual practices of science news websites as a showcase for gaps between theory and practice

“…Likewise, many science communication practitioners prioritize communications designed to provide knowledge rather than establish a dialogue with the public [e.g. Nerghes, Mulder & Lee, 2022;Yuan & Besley, 2021]. This practice persists despite increasing calls to play a more prominent role at the interface between science and society by facilitating dialogue [Reincke, Bredenoord & van Mil, 2020].…”

Citizen science and participatory science communication: an empirically informed discussion connecting research and theory

“…Within this approach, the openness of science would reside precisely in the opportunity for society to take part in the knowledge production process and to further promote paths for including citizens' contributions within the research processes [Macq, Tancoigne & Strasser, 2020]. The shared orientation towards dialogic approaches, as promoted by the literature in public engagement, however, is hard to be found in practice when we consider scientists' opinions about the public: they tend to reproduce deficit model and to interpret science communication consequently as top-down approach remaining endemic [Cook & Zurita, 2019;Simis, Madden, Cacciatore & Yeo, 2016]; expectations for adopting a participatory approach are thus far from being the dominant communication strategy nor an easy task to be performed as recent researches demonstrate [Nerghes, Mulder & Lee, 2022].…”

Identificación de barreras/competencias lingüísticas en comunicación científica de investigadores universitarios

“…Aunque la generación de conocimiento, tanto de individuos e instituciones, es reconocida como una función básica relacionada con la comunicación de la ciencia, pareciera ser que sus implicaciones representan una función diferente. La generación de conocimiento se agrega a las funciones tradicionalmente reconocidas en la medición de la competitividad de las instituciones de conocimiento, pero ahora se encuentra afectada por la noción de la rentabilidad, más allá del prestigio académico que llega a considerarse como un idealismo teórico (Nerghes et al, 2022).…”